linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] mm: rename and change semantics of nr_indirectly_reclaimable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0e1e8870-9c98-2330-e978-f927c33eec49@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:11:22 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] mm: rename and change semantics of
 nr_indirectly_reclaimable_bytes

On 07/17/2018 08:54 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:44:07AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 07/02/2018 06:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:09:27PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>
>>> If these per-cpu data is something like per-cpu refcounters,
>>> which are using to manage reclaimable objects (e.g. cgroup css objects).
>>> Of course, they are not always reclaimable, but in certain states.
>>
>> BTW, seems you seem interested, could you provide some more formal
>> review as well? Others too. We don't need to cover all use cases
>> immediately, when the patchset is apparently stalled due to lack of
>> review. Thanks!
> 
> Sure!

Thanks!

> The patchset looks sane at a first glance, but I need some time
> to dig deeper. Is v2 the final version?

There was a fixlet on top and some added changelog text, so I'll do a v3
tomorrow incorporating that to make things easier for everyone.

> Thanks!
>